Britain's role in the world usually centres on nuclear weapons, terrorism and the special relationship with the US. Britain’s was the worlds superpower for 150 years until WW2 where it successfully halted Napoleon’s attempt at conquering Europe, then Germany’s attempts at occupying Europe in the early 20th century. It was again Britain who was at the forefront of facing against Hitler’s attempts at conquering Europe. British interests have not changed over the years.

World War Two consumed Britain to such an extent that it brought an end to the British Empire and its international standing. This was because Britain was virtually bankrupt from WW1. Its army was overstretched and Britain was not in a position to enter another war. This is why in the post war era, British global aims have been restricted by its economic reality. For this reason Britain worked and continues to have a role in the world by partaking in global issues, however it is unable to completely shift the global balance of power. Fareed Zakaria, the Newsweek international columnist in his book ‘The Post American World,’ encapsulated British policy: "The photographs of Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill at the Yalta Conference in February 1945 are somewhat misleading. There was no 'big three' at Yalta. There was a 'big two' plus one brilliant political entrepreneur who was able to keep himself and his country in the game, so that Britain maintained many elements of great powerdom well into the late 20th century."29

British foreign policy today is built upon having a role in Europe and influencing the US. British policy makers have accepted the nation's weakness after WW2 and developed a policy of preservation rather then outright competition with the US. Britain has managed to achieve its interests through a policy of preserving its global ambitions by working with the US and the EU, whilst at the same time working to divert, alter, complicate and limit the aims of both. Britain’s recent policies to achieve its interests show that politically Britain as a nation will always compete with the US, however beyond this it lacks the resources or the economy to achieve anything substantial.

Britain frustrated US plans by rescuing Gaddafi's government from the clutches of American neoconservatives who after September 11 wanted regime change in Libya. Britain manipulated Gaddafi into accepting Libya’s role in the Lockerbie disaster and secured the release of Al-Megrahi in 2009, securing in turn a stable supply of Africa’s oil.

In Afghanistan the UK has played an ominous role. After eight years of war the western allies are no closer to defeating the Taliban. Whilst all those with interests in Afghanistan met in London in January 2009 to hammer out a deal to entice the Taliban with offers of government positions, Britain appears to have complicated America's presence in South Afghanistan where most of the fighting still continues. The Helmand province where British troops are stationed is still not secure after all these years. Britain cut deals with the Taliban in the South which included bribing the Taliban, the London Times investigation in 2007 revealed over £1.5 million was spent in bribing members of the Taliban.30 Similarly Research by the independent Afghanistan Analysts Network, a Kabul-based think tank, in a report, titled Golden Surrender, was highly critical of the British-backed Peace and Reconciliation Scheme (PTS), established in 2005, which it says has been left to flounder under bad leadership with neither the political nor the financial capital it required.

America brokered the Naivasha peace accord in 2005, which culminated in the eventual termination of the civil war between the main rebel group, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) and the Sudanese government. The terms of the agreement included a variety of measures that gave the South autonomy and the prospects of secession in 2011 when the deal expires. Both Britain and France provided arms to Chad, which supports and arms the rebels in Darfur, which created the Darfur issue. Both nations have successfully internationalised the issue of Darfur and complicated US plans to separate the South of Sudan and turn it into an independent nation. Instead the US must now deal with the Darfur issue thus delaying its plans for the South.

In Lebanon the assassinations of prominent politicians have deeply divided Lebanon into pro-Syrian/Hizbullah and pro-EU camps. The Hezbollah-led March 8 coalition utilised its veto vote to complicate the forming of a government. Both Britain and France have engaged with the March 14 coalition led by Saad Hariri's Future Movement to maintain their relevance in Lebanese politics. Hizbullah has successfully ensured US interests are protected in Lebanon by utilising its veto vote resulting in none of the pro-EU parties from achieving a majority and therefore unilaterally forming a government. In this way the US has been unable to turn Lebanon into a US stronghold.

Whilst Britain is member of the P5 + 1 commission attempting to bring Iran in line and halt its attempts to enrich Uranium to weapons grade standard, it has used its role to complicate American interests. In the Iranian elections in 2009 Britain alongside Europe blew the election result out of proportion and worked to exploit the situation. Britain argued that the Iranian regime needs to address the legitimate concerns of the protesters; they also didn’t recognize the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad. The US on the other hand, who is looking to impose harsh sanctions on the country, actually supported the regime by arguing that the issue was an Iranian domestic matter. Britain and France had tried to influence the protests, but it was a weak attempt to bring down the Ahmadinejad’s regime. Similarly the US made use of the non-permanent members of the United Nations in the face increased pressure from Britain to push ahead with crippling gasoline sanctions against Iran. For the US the nuclear stand-off achieves a number of its aims in the region, this is why the stand off never reaches anything conclusive, whatever the rhetoric at the time. By working with the US on the issue Britain has worked to undermine the US.

The British establishment views complete isolationism from the EU as unrealistic. Europe is too close and too large to be simply ignored. Successive British governments believe that through engagement, London can influence the EU’s development and the ultimate direction of its policies. It is not opposed to a European political union, as long as London does not turn into Luxemburg and melt into the EU, it wants a prominent seat at the table of such a union.

Britain has successfully kept itself in the international game through participating in all international issues. An example of this is the Afghan war, Britain has no overriding interests in the country, however it has participated in the US led war to keep itself relevant and in this way it is able to shape the outcome of the conflict. This is all Britain will achieve; it will never shift the worlds superpower from its post as it lacks the power, economy or resources.

Whilst Britain has a £1.5 trillion economy, the 6th largest in the world Britain lacks the industrial base to pose any challenge to the US. Britain has global aims and has mastered the art of political manoeuvring; however it punches above its weight. Britain was bankrupt due to the costs of WW1, it was in no position to challenge the rise of Nazi Germany, and this in some way explains Neville Chamberlain appeasement. However with Hitler’s Germany occupying most of Europe and on the verge of removing Britain as the world’s superpower Britain went to war to reverse Germany’s advance, with the Soviet Union launching an Eastern offensive and with Britain and the US launching the infamous D-day offensive landings in France, Germany was defeated by 1945. However it was not Britain who defeated Germany – it was the Soviet Union and the US, Britain was devastated, the country lay in ruins and economically the British Empire was in no position to fund its global empire.

The austerity years resulted in the economies of the US, Soviet Union, Japan and Germany to overtake Britain’s. British industry paled into insignificance to the technological developments taking place in the US and by the time Thatcher arrived in office in 1979 Britain was abandoning its industrial base which was developed in the 18th century – Britain was the first country in the world to industrialise, it was central to it becoming a world power.

Britain today has an economy which is driven by the services industry, which itself is dominated by finance. It has lost a generation of engineers and specialists in industry as Britain restructured its economy from industry to services in the last three decades. This has resulted in Britain being unable to lead an independent and unilateral foreign policy as it physically cannot go it alone. This is why Britain has for decades learnt the art of constructing coalitions and using others to fulfil its own aims. Whilst Britain’s nuclear deterrent continues to be the lens through which the nation's foreign policy is viewed. Britain's nuclear weapons whether the missiles, warheads, switches and factories have all been sold to the US. Britain has outsourced its nuclear deterrent, whilst this means it losses its independence on security, it also reduces the burden on the UK budget.

Britain’s economy is weak from an international standpoint. Today British industry has around 3 million people with food processing the largest industry. Britain today produces transport equipment, which is undertaken by car manufacturers such as BMW, General Motors, Honda, Nissan, Toyota and Volkswagen. Brush Traction and Hunslet manufacture railway locomotives and other related components. Rolls Royce, manufacture aerospace engines and power generation systems. But Britain’s military industry is dominated by BAE Systems, who manufactures civil and defence aerospace, land and marine equipment, which include the Type 45 destroyer, aircraft carriers, the Eurofighter Typhoon and maintains Tornado and Harrier jets. Only the Type 45 destroyer is built entirely by British engineers, all other heavy military equipment is either imported from overseas or developed with partners. Very little military systems is indigenously constructed by Britain Britain’s biggest problem today is its economic reality, its economy is unable to support the aims the UK has for global domination, and as a result London has played a weakening hand in international affairs. Until Britain doesn’t reconstruct its economy towards industry its unlikely Britain will even attempt to challenge the world’s superpower directly, it will make do with its small gains.

Britain’s global outlook is based upon protecting the array of interests it has. This can be encapsulated as Britain complicating, altering and diverting the plans of other powers. This is how Britain keeps itself relevant. Due to the economic reality of Britain, it has no propensity to achieve anything more. Britain can complicate the plans of other world powers to the extent that it is taken seriously in the world, this is why the US very rarely goes it alone, and it usually takes Britain along with it. For Britain it has the front seat with the world’s superpower and can see at first hand US plans evolve, this places it in pole position to benefit from US aims and giving it the option to complicate US plans if this serves its aims. Britain has to deal with the prospect of a resurgent Russia and both Iraq and Afghanistan becoming ever more complex. Britain will also face the prospect of both Germany and France further entrenching themselves into Europe after the Lisbon treaty, shaping the EU in their interests. Britain will continue to work with the US in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan and continue to alter and complicate US plans in order to keep strengthening itself. This dual, sometimes contradictory approach is how Britain keeps itself relevant in international politics. This is what Britain has resigned its role to in international politics; it no longer has the ability to achieve anything more substantial. Britain plays its weakening hand with impressive political skill, however this is insufficient in becoming the worlds superpower.